FCC Declines To Probe Disclosure of Phone Records 97
An anonymous reader writes "News.com reports that the FCC won't be investigating the phone record disclosures by communications companies under US government pressure. Despite a congressional request for that probe, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin quashed the inquiry based on comments from National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell. 'At issue are reports last year that some big telephone companies allowed the U.S. government access to millions of telephone records for an antiterrorism program. The reports have prompted scrutiny by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Democratic Rep. Edward Markey, the chairman of a key Energy and Commerce subcommittee, asked Martin to investigate. Markey, of Massachusetts, said McConnell's stance was "unsurprising given that this administration has continually thwarted efforts by Congress to shed more light on the surveillance program."'"
So what is Congress good for? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Possession is still 9 points of the law (Score:2, Interesting)
1) The general dislike for the current administration (whether applicable or not, it's still there).
2) The big question of whether national security trumps personal privacy.
3) How much personal privacy is given up in the interest of national security.
4) Just what information was gathered by the surveillance program.
The first issue we'll just not discuss, since it's really irrelevant in the overall discussion. Basically, if your decision to NOT allow this type of surveillance is based solely on the fact it's Bush in the Whitehouse, then you are being irrational.
Second, can national security trump personal privacy and if so, how much personal privacy? History shows that, in the United States, during times of war or national crisis, personal privacy gets trumped by national security for what was deemed at the time as being for the public good. For example, Bill Clinton issued an executive order on February 9, 1995 allowing the attorney general to conduct warrantless searches in the interest of national security. [fas.org] Likewise, during World War II, Franklin Roosevelt interned Japanese-Americans to prevent them from spying or otherwise being a nuisance [wikipedia.org].
Third and fourth, just how much is too much? Well, surveillance in this program was more interested in envelope information such as from where the call is coming from and where it is going to. Phone numbers, without any information attached to them, is basically public record. I could pick up my phone and make a call to a random number right now, that's public information.
Now, who you call is another story. Should the phone companies be tracking this information at all? Well, yes, they use it for billing. Who called who and for how long determines how much they charge you, or at the very least how much it costs them for you to make that phone call. They need this information to run their business. Now the question is, who does this information belong to? You? The telephone company? Well, both! You need this information, possibly, for your own personal information. However, as mentioned, the telco needs it for billing. Since you're using their services, they have the right to this information.
With that in mind, the telco has the right to use that information as they wish, no matter what any Terms of Service say, because you agree to their service and as part of that service, they need to gather said information in order to get you to pay for that service. So, in essence, the telco has every right to provide this information to the federal gov't if they want to (whether it's in their own best interest or not).
So now the question is, should the FCC investigate this activity? Well, technically they could, but the question is whether it's worth it. The question is whether the NSA broke any law under FISA (pointing back to the first link of Clinton's executive order) allows this type of surveillance. But that's not up to the FCC to decide, but for the court to decide. So, is the Congress suing the administration in order to obtain this information? Because that's the only way to properly obtain all the necessary information. Ask your congressman. Because I bet you the Democrats would lose that one in Federal court and they know it. Which is why they chose to argue this one in the court of public opinion.
Re:There is no such thing as private communication (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't disagree. It was wrong. Still and all.....privacy is an illusion. You can bitch all you want but the fact is that without some form of encryption there is no secure communications. From bored comm techs to overly enthusiastic FBI agents and NSA operatives, there is always someone listening. You can expect privacy but you aren't going to get it.
Re:Possession is still 9 points of the law (Score:3, Interesting)
To me, freedom is about meaningful choice, and that means you need to have some real options and sufficient information to choice among them. I'm not sure what the minimum number of choices should be, but I feel like you need at least 4 or 5 of them to keep them competing against each other. (Yes, I think Microsoft should but cut into pieces and set against each other.) In a sense we have that kind of competition between governments, but to make it work on the individual level, we should be free to choose our government, and two thing all governments agree on is that they do *NOT* want the citizens choosing too freely and jumping from one government to a different one that seems better, and they do not want the people to go around changing the government to a different type. The American idea of balance of powers was a pretty clever innovation, and it worked for a long time and did a lot of good, but it looks like the "unitary executive" has finally killed it--while claiming to be "conservatives".
With regards to your proposed suggestion, I don't think it would work. Too many people would pick the same things, and you need balance.
Finally, to close with a twisted sort of joke: As He is described in most monotheistic religions, God has no freedom. If He is "omniscient" and "good", then He would know the full consequences of any action and He would always have to take the best option--and He would therefore have no freedom to choose otherwise. Freedom is in the limbo zone, where you know enough to make meaningful choices, but not so much that your choices are fully constrained.